Report to the Legislature:
Annual Report on Students with
Disabilities 2014-2015
Chapter 159, Acts of 2000
March 2016
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
75 Pleasant Street, Malden, MA 02148-4906
Phone 781-338-3000 TTY: N.E.T. Relay 800-439-2370
www.doe.mass.edu
This document was prepared by the
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
Mitchell D. Chester, Ed.D.
Commissioner
Board of Elementary and Secondary Education Members
Mr. Paul Sagan, Chair, Cambridge
Mr. James Morton, Vice Chair, Boston
Ms. Katherine Craven, Brookline
Dr. Edward Doherty, Hyde Park
Dr. Roland Fryer, Concord
Ms. Margaret McKenna, Boston
Mr. Michael Moriarty, Holyoke
Dr. Pendred Noyce, Boston
Mr. James Peyser, Secretary of Education, Milton
Ms. Mary Ann Stewart, Lexington
Mr. Donald Willyard, Chair, Student Advisory Council, Revere
Mitchell D. Chester, Ed.D., Commissioner and Secretary to the Board
*
The Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, an affirmative action employer, is committed to ensuring that
all of its programs and facilities are accessible to all members of the public.
We do not discriminate on the basis of age, color, disability, national origin, race, religion, sex, gender identity, or sexual orientation.
Inquiries regarding the Department’s compliance with Title IX and other civil rights laws may be directed to the
Human Resources Director, 75 Pleasant St., Malden, MA 02148-4906. Phone: 781-338-6105.
© 2016 Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
Permission is hereby granted to copy any or all parts of this document for non-commercial educational purposes. Please credit the
“Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education.”
This document printed on recycled paper
Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
75 Pleasant Street, Malden, MA 02148-4906
Phone 781-338-3000 TTY: N.E.T. Relay 800-439-2370
www.doe.mass.edu
Massachusetts Department of
Elementary & Secondary Education
75 Pleasant Street, Malden, Massachusetts 02148-4906
Telephone: (781) 338-3000
TTY: N.E.T. Relay 1-800-439-2370
Mitchell D. Chester, Ed.D.
Commissioner
March 2016
Dear Members of the General Court:
I am pleased to submit this Report to the Legislature: Annual Report on Students with Disabilities 20142015. This report has been provided to the Legislature on an annual basis since the year 2000.
This report is issued in the context of a change in focus for the U.S. Office of Special Education Programs
(OSEP), the federal agency which oversees the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)
implementation in each state. OSEP’s new accountability framework, Results Driven Accountability
(RDA), focuses first and foremost on improved educational results and functional outcomes for students
with disabilities, rather than emphasizing procedural requirements only. In June 2015, OSEP notified the
Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (“the Department”) that, for the second year in a
row, Massachusetts meets the requirements of IDEA. This is the highest accolade that a state can receive
from OSEP. Such determinations are based on the totality of the state’s data and information, including
students with IEPs’ participation and performance on the National Assessment of Educational Progress
(NAEP), their participation in the MCAS, data and information provided to the U.S. Department of
Education from other sources, and the Federal Fiscal Year (FFY) 2013 State Performance Plan/Annual
Performance Report (SPP/APR).
The Department has also focused on outcomes for students with disabilities in our state initiatives. In our
FY14 Report to the Legislature we examined research by Dr. Thomas Hehir and Associates regarding
student placement, services, and outcomes data for special education. Dr. Hehir’s research found that
students from low income families are almost twice as likely to be eligible for special education services as
other students. Additionally, students with IEPs from low income families are almost twice as likely to be
educated in separate settings. Given the growth of the numbers of students living in poverty in
Massachusetts, I am particularly concerned that our response of disproportionately identifying these students
for special education services is inappropriate, and separating them from the general education environment
is resulting in poorer outcomes for these already vulnerable students. As a direct response, this past year the
Department initiated the new Low-income Education Access Project (LEAP) to reduce the disproportionate
special education identification and substantially separate placement of students from low income families.
LEAP is directly addressed in this report on page six, and showcases our commitment to collaboration with
partners both inside and outside of the Department, thus expanding and deepening partnerships across our
offices and with sister agencies, school district personnel, and community members.
This report highlights our current efforts, achievements, and works in progress. If you have any questions,
please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
Mitchell D. Chester, Ed.D.
Commissioner of Elementary and Secondary Education
Table of Contents
I.
Introduction ......................................................................................................................1
II.
Background: Enrollment and Finances .........................................................................1
A.
Longitudinal Enrollment ................................................................................................... 1
B.
Student Identification by Disability Category ................................................................... 2
C.
Financial Summary............................................................................................................ 3
D.
School-Based Medicaid ..................................................................................................... 4
E.
Circuit Breaker .................................................................................................................. 5
III.
FY15 in Review .................................................................................................................5
A.
Office of Special Education Planning & Policy Development ......................................... 5
1. LEAP - Low-income Education Access Project ........................................................... 6
2. State Systemic Improvement Plan (SSIP) ..................................................................... 7
3. The Autism Endorsement .............................................................................................. 8
4. Secondary Transition ..................................................................................................... 8
B.
Educational Collaboratives................................................................................................ 9
C.
Bureau of Special Education Appeals ............................................................................. 10
1. Facilitated IEP TEAM Meetings ................................................................................. 11
2. Mediation..................................................................................................................... 11
3. Due Process Hearings .................................................................................................. 11
4. Prevailing Party and Representation ........................................................................... 11
5. Settlement Conferences ............................................................................................... 11
IV.
For More Information....................................................................................................11
I.
Introduction
The Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (“the Department”) respectfully
submits this Report to the Legislature pursuant to Chapter 159 of the Acts of 2000, Section 432,
which reads in relevant part:
“The Department …… shall annually . . . report to the General Court on the
implementation of [special education law]. Such report shall include … cost increases or savings
in cities or towns, . . . the extent of the development of educational collaboratives to provide
necessary services, the increase or decrease of the number of children served, federal noncompliance issues and other such matters as said Department deems appropriate. Such report
shall be filed with the clerks of the House of Representatives and the Senate who shall forward
the same to the Joint Committee on Education, Arts and Humanities and the House and Senate
Committees on Ways and Means…”
II.
Background: Enrollment and Finances
This section on Enrollment and Finances offers data required by the statute and provides context
for subsequent discussion of Department activities.
A.
Longitudinal Enrollment
Both Massachusetts’ total student enrollment and the number of students receiving special
education services increased slightly from school year 2013-2014 (FY14) to 2014-15 (FY15).
After five years at 17 percent, the percentage of students with Individualized Education
Programs (IEPs) enrolled in Massachusetts public schools increased by 0.1 percentage points in
FY15 (Table 1).
Table 1: Number and Percentage of Students with Disabilities, FY06–FY15
School Year
Total Special
Education Enrollment
Total Enrollment
Percentage of Students
with Disabilities
2005-06
160,752
983,439
16.4%
2006-07
163,396
979,851
16.7%
2007-08
164,298
972,178
16.9%
2008-09
166,037
970,059
17.1%
2009-10
164,847
967,951
17.0%
2010-11
164,711
966,395
17.0%
2011-12
163,679
964,198
17.0%
2012-13
163,921
965,602
17.0%
2013-14
164,336
966,360
17.0%
2014-15
165,060
966,391
17.1%
Source: Massachusetts Student Information Management System
1
B.
Student Identification by Disability Category
The following table identifies numbers and percentages of students with IEPs by disability
category. FY11 and FY15 data are used to illustrate change over a five-year period within
categories. (Values are rounded to the nearest 0.1.)
Table 2: Number and Percentage of Disability Categories Ages 3-21 (FY11 and FY15)
Primary Disability
FY11
Percentage
Change
FY15
#
%
#
%
%
Specific Learning Disability
51,900
31.5
42,339
25.7
- 5.8
Communication
29,173
17.7
27,486
16.7
- 1.0
Health
13,966
8.5
19,559
11.9
+ 3.4
Developmental Delay
17,635
10.7
17,896
10.8
+ 0.1
Autism
12,058
7.3
17,365
10.5
+ 3.2
Emotional
13,964
8.5
14,761
8.9
+ 0.4
Neurological
7,436
4.5
9,077
5.5
+ 1.0
Intellectual
10,374
6.3
8,995
5.5
- 0.8
Multiple Disabilities
4,726
2.9
4,357
2.6
- 0.3
Physical
1,460
0.9
1,232
0.8
- 0.1
Sensory/Hard of Hearing
1,226
0.7
1,221
0.7
---
Sensory/Vision Impairment
592
0.4
616
0.4
---
Sensory/Deaf/Blind
201
0.1
156
0.1
---
SWD Total
164,711
100
165,060
100
Source: Massachusetts Student Information Management System
Collectively, Specific Learning Disability, Communication Impairment, and Health Impairment
are often referred to as “high incidence disabilities” and are the disabilities most commonly
found in the general population. Dr. Thomas Hehir and Associates, in their 2012 Review of
Special Education in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, observed, “Nearly two out of every
three Massachusetts students with a disability are identified as belonging in one of these three
categories and due to the potentially subjective nature of their diagnosis, rates of identification
for these categories may be more sensitive to policy decisions than rates for the more strictly
defined categories. Further, we see evidence throughout the commonwealth that indicates that
children with similar profiles may fall differentially into one of these three categories, depending
on the designation conventions of different school districts.”1 Thus, the percentage of students in
each of these three categories may rise and fall relative to each other in any given year. For
FY15, Specific Learning Disability has decreased by 5.8 percent and Communication by 1.0
percent when compared with the FY11 rate, whereas Health has risen by 3.4 percent. However,
when combined, students with IEPs in the categories of Specific Learning Disability,
Communication Impairment, and Health Impairment represent approximately 54.3 percent of all
students receiving special education services in Massachusetts. This overall number is 3.4
percentage points lower than it was in 2011.
1
Hehir, T., Grindal, T., & Eidelman, H. (2012, April 1). Review of Special Education in the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts. Retrieved January 11, 2016, from http://www.doe.mass.edu/sped/2012/0412sped.pdf
2
Consistent with national trends2, Autism has increased by 3.2 percentage points over five years
and is currently at 10.5 percent of all students with a disability.
For most other disability categories, the percentages have stayed mostly constant over the last
five years.
C.
Financial Summary
Special education expenditures are reported by public school districts at the end of the year to the
Department. Table 3 below shows the most recent available data (FY15 data were not available
at the time of this writing) and indicates that both total school operating budgets and combined
special education expenditures have increased over the past ten years. Expenditures from the
district Special Education Reimbursement (“Circuit Breaker”) Program revolving accounts are
included. The operating budget includes municipal indirect spending for schools but excludes
capital expenditures and transportation. Other than circuit breaker spending, the operating budget
does not include expenditures from grants, revolving funds, or other non-appropriated revenue
sources. (Values are rounded to the nearest $100,000.)
Definitions and notes:

Direct special education expenditures include only those that can be related specifically
to pupils receiving special education services.

Other instructional includes supervisory, textbooks and instructional equipment,
guidance, and psychological services.

MA Public Schools and Collaboratives includes other public school districts, educational
collaboratives, and charter schools.
Table 3: Direct Special Education Expenditures, FY08–FY14, In Dollars
In-District Instruction
A
Fiscal
Year
B
Out-of-District Tuition
C
D
E
F
Combined
Special Ed
Expenditures
(A+B+C+D)
Total
School
Operating
Budget
G
Special
Education
% of
Budget
(E as %
of F)
Teaching
Other
Instructional
MA Public
Schools and
Collaboratives
MA Private
and Out-ofState
Schools
2008
1,132,805,073
209,235,235
223,288,119
451,779,440
2,017,107,867
10,172,987,581
19.8
2009
1,199,704,253
212,959,915
223,839,279
417,844,303
2,054,347,750
10,243,839,754
20.1
2010
1,221,013,989
218,417,498
227,720,315
422,154,922
2,089,306,724
10,530,690,533
19.8
2011
1,214,794,187
228,193,919
247,601,162
435,878,519
2,126,467,787
10,710,955,988
19.9
2012
1,290,077,738
239,336,243
258,571,816
475,131,655
2,263,117,452
11,034,255,332
20.5
2013
1,391,956,887
248,357,794
257,350,184
507,772,958
2,405,437,823
11,486,135,702
20.9
2014
1,459,789,905
257,489,030
259,934,327
511,132,743
2,488,346,005
11,926,430,635
20.9
Source: End of Year Pupil and Financial Report, Schedule 4 – Special Education Expenditures
2
10 Things to Know About New Autism Data. (2014, March 31). Retrieved January 7, 2016, from
http://www.cdc.gov/features/dsautismdata/index.html
3
D.
School-Based Medicaid
The School-Based Medicaid program allows local education authorities (LEAs), such as cities
and towns, charter schools, public health commissions, and regional school districts, to seek
payment for providing medically necessary Medicaid services (direct services) to eligible
MassHealth-enrolled children. This program also allows such agencies to seek payment for
participating in activities that support the administration of the state's Medicaid program
(administrative activities). This includes outreach and those activities that aid the delivery of
direct services to Medicaid-enrolled children with IEPs. State law allows LEAs to participate in
the School-Based Medicaid program and to seek payment for either direct services or
administrative activities or both. In order to participate in the program, LEAs must sign provider
contracts with the state Medicaid agency. School-Based Medicaid providers can bill MassHealth
in accordance with the contract terms. Federal revenues are returned directly to the municipality
which, in turn, can choose to share such revenue with the school districts, in whole or in part.
Figure A below seeks to provide an overview of the scale of Massachusetts’ districts receiving
Medicaid revenue from municipalities. Districts may apply for and receive revenues in different
fiscal years, but this is a close approximation of FY14 activity. Typically, municipalities that do
not share the Medicaid revenue with the school district usually provide some alternative service
(such as property maintenance or snow-plowing), so Figure A must be viewed with some
caution. Data for FY14 represents the most recent available information.
Figure A: Municipal Medicaid Funding Breakdown, FY14
408 Districts in State
332 School Districts
Participated (81.4%)
76 Districts Did Not
Participate (18.6%)
37 Districts Received
No Revenue
295 Districts
Received Revenue
94 Districts Received
Some Revenue
201 Districts Received
100% of Claims
Source: MA EOHHS Office of School-Based Medicaid
The figures for the School-Based Medicaid program for FY07 through FY14 are provided below
in Figure B. The sharp decline from FY9 to FY10 represents a change in the claiming
mechanism required by the federal Medicaid office. Total Municipal Medicaid Claims for FY14
were $66.3 million. Total revenue received by providers in FY14 was $60.6 million ; $38.7
4
million was for Direct Services Claims and $27.7 million for Administrative Activity Claiming.
In FY14, 295 school districts received Medicaid revenue.
Figure B: Total Municipal Medicaid Claims in Dollars FY07-FY14
Dollars Rounded to the Nearest
Tenth of a Million
120.0
108.0
111.0
110.8
100.0
73.9
80.0
65.1
64.1
65.8
FY10
FY11
FY12
66.3
60.0
40.0
20.0
0.0
FY7
FY8
FY9
FY13
FY14
Source: MA EOHHS Office of School-Based Medicaid
E.
Circuit Breaker
The state Special Education Reimbursement (“Circuit Breaker”) Program, enacted by the
Legislature in 2000, c. 159, § 171, was first implemented in FY04. The Circuit Breaker program
is designed to provide additional state financial assistance to school districts that have incurred
exceptionally high costs in educating individual students with disabilities. The law supports
shared costs between the Department and the school district when costs rise above a certain
level, at which point the state will share up to 75 percent of the costs. Massachusetts state funds
are available to reimburse a school district for students with disabilities whose special education
costs exceed four times the state average foundation budget per pupil.
Annual reports on statewide circuit breaker claims and reimbursement can be found at
http://www.doe.mass.edu/finance/circuitbreaker. Data from June 2015 show district claims
submitted in FY14 and reimbursed in FY15 at a rate of 73.5 percent.
III.
FY15 in Review
This section highlights specific strategies, initiatives, activities, and planning conducted by the
Department during FY15.
A.
Office of Special Education Planning & Policy Development
The Office of Special Education Planning & Policy Development (SEPP) is the lead unit at the
Department for planning and delivering targeted supports and resources to continuously improve
the education of students receiving special education services. SEPP’s mission is to strengthen
the Commonwealth’s public education system so that every student, and most especially every
student with disabilities, is prepared to succeed in postsecondary education, compete in the
5
global economy, and understand the rights and responsibilities of American citizens, and in so
doing, to close all proficiency gaps. With a results-driven focus, the office seeks to increase
public knowledge regarding special education and students with disabilities; engage in strategic
planning and use of funds; develop, model, and disseminate best practices; promote
communication and collaboration within the Department and among external stakeholders; and
support effective compliance to improve student outcomes. The following FY15 highlights
exemplify these strategies.
1. LEAP - Low-income Education Access Project
In 2014, 38.3 percent of all Massachusetts students came from low income families, with the
highest levels of poverty in the Pioneer Valley (53.2 percent of all students) and the lowest in the
Southeast (34.3 percent of all students). Students from low income families are 1.95 times more
likely to be eligible for special education services than other students. Once they receive
services, they are then 1.8 times more likely to be educated in separate settings. This is
particularly alarming, given evidence from research conducted by Dr. Thomas Hehir and
Associates demonstrating that students with IEPs who have full inclusion placements outperform
similar students in more separate placements on the MCAS and are 4.79 times more likely to
graduate high school on time. OSEP’s determination letter of June 2014 stresses that “protecting
the rights of children with disabilities and their families is a key responsibility of state
educational agencies (SEAs) and local educational agencies (LEAs), but it is not sufficient if
children are not attaining the knowledge and skills necessary to achieve the goals of IDEA as
reflected in Congressional findings in section 601(c)(1) of the IDEA Improvement Act of 2004:
equality of opportunity, full participation, independent living, and economic self-sufficiency.” To
promote adult success for all students, it is incumbent upon the Department and statewide
education stakeholders to reduce the number of Massachusetts students inappropriately identified
for special education or educated in separate settings.
In response to state data and the Hehir and Associates research, the Low-income Education
Access Project (LEAP) was created with a commitment to reduce the rate of disproportionality
of the special education identification and substantially separate placement of students from low
income families. Project elements include root cause and infrastructure analyses to identify,
develop, and disseminate tools, technical assistance, sustainable professional development, and
other resources to ultimately support all Massachusetts districts.
Under the direction of SEPP, the Department is creating internal, agency-wide collaborative
systems and partnerships with a stakeholder group of districts (known as “LEAP districts”) to do
this work. These districts include Acton-Boxborough, Andover, Boston, Brookline, Chicopee,
Fall River, Holyoke, Hopkinton, Lynn, Malden, Medfield, Nashoba, Needham, and North
Attleboro. In March 2015, the Department held a forum for LEAP districts to establish a shared
understanding of the determining factors for the special education identification and placement
of students with disabilities from low income families and to identify best practices for
supporting districts to improve outcomes for students with disabilities from low income families.
In April and May 2015, SEPP coordinated onsite visits to each LEAP district.
LEAP partners work collaboratively with SEPP to produce tools, resources, training, and
professional development opportunities that can ultimately be scaled up and disseminated to all
Massachusetts districts. In addition to LEAP districts and Department offices, LEAP
organizational partners include, but are not limited to, the Federation for Children with Special
Needs, the Lower Pioneer Valley Educational Collaborative, and a statewide cadre of trainers,
including collaboratives. The focus of this project in its first year has been on improving
6
understanding of the effects of poverty on students generally, and identifying teaching practices
that overcome the impact of poverty on learning. This work has involved the LEAP districts and
a number of other districts with high poverty concentrations in their student body.
2. State Systemic Improvement Plan (SSIP)
The Massachusetts State Systemic Improvement Plan (SSIP) Phase 1 statewide data and
infrastructure analysis was completed and submitted to OSEP in April 2015.3 Based on extensive
analyses and in collaboration with Department stakeholders, Massachusetts developed a plan to
improve social emotional skills for young children aged 3-5 with IEPs using Positive Behavior
Supports (PBS) through Pyramid Strategies. This approach is a research-based framework and
curriculum to promote social emotional skills and address challenging behaviors for young
children. Throughout FY15 and continuing into FY16, the Department is building state- and
local-level capacity to create sustainable leadership systems and infrastructure that will enable an
ongoing cycle of improvement and direct technical assistance and training for local staff.
Phase 2 of the SSIP commenced in FY16 and includes the Department’s activities to:
a) strengthen systems for sustainability across state agencies in order to build the state
infrastructure to promote systemic use of PBS through Pyramid Strategies; b) support LEA
implementation of evidence-based practices; and c) develop an evaluation plan for the SSIP.
Specifically, the Department has initiated Phase 2 with 18 districts throughout the
Commonwealth and will continue to expand the initiative statewide.
Figure C: SSIP Theory of Action
3
For background on the SSIP, please see the FY14 legislative report.
7
The Department continues to build statewide infrastructure via inter- and intra-agency
collaboration, allowing multiple partners to support LEA implementation. These activities
include joint trainings with the Departments of Public Health, Early Education and Care,
Children and Families, and Mental Health. Additionally, intra-agency collaboration and
coordination occurs between SEPP, the Office of Tiered Systems of Support (OTSS) (through its
Positive Behavior Intervention and Supports (PBIS) Academies), and the Office of Student
Support to ensure the longitudinal and sustainable nature of the initiative is addressed.
Finally, the Department is creating an evaluation plan for the project, based on the Theory of
Action (Figure C above), in order to identify and measure the inputs, outputs, and outcomes of
the initiative based on statewide data. By analyzing the data, the Department will be able to
determine the effectiveness of the implementation and make modifications to the implementation
or support for LEAs, as needed, thereby promoting improved outcomes for students.
3. The Autism Endorsement
In July 2014 the Legislature passed and the Governor signed into law Chapter 226 of the Acts of
2014, An Act Relative to Assisting Individuals with Autism and Other Intellectual or
Developmental Disabilities. This law directs the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education
(“BESE”, or “the Board”) to establish a teacher licensure endorsement in Autism in order to
meet the unique and complex educational needs of students on the Autism Spectrum.
At the June 23, 2015 meeting, the Board reviewed public comments on proposed amendments to
603 CMR 7.00, Regulations for Educator Licensure and Preparation Program Approval, relating
to the new Autism Endorsement. Written through a collaborative process with stakeholders,
these regulations describe the knowledge and skills required for the attainment of this
endorsement, including an understanding of Autism and related co-morbid conditions,
assessment and the use of data, effective educational program design, specialized and
individualized instructional strategies and supports, and collaboration with IEP Team members.
The Department received 32 comments from individuals and organizations during the public
comment period, and three of the original commenters also provided comments at the BESE
meeting in June. Over the course of the summer, the Department carefully considered additional
stakeholder feedback and comments from the Board and modified the regulations based on that
input. In September 2015 the Board passed final regulations to create an Autism Endorsement in
Massachusetts. This new endorsement will help special educators to more effectively promote
optimal outcomes for the more than 17,000 students with Autism in the Commonwealth.
Between October 2015 and September 2016, as directed by the BESE, the Department has
initiated a process of engaging stakeholders to seek feedback in two areas regarding
implementation of the credential’s requirements. First, the Department will seek feedback on the
development of guidelines for educator preparation program approval for the Autism
Endorsement. Second, feedback will be solicited on the use of the endorsement in the field and
educators’ experience with the endorsement, including whether and how eligibility for it should
be expanded to general education teachers to promote inclusion of students with disabilities in
general education programs.
4. Secondary Transition
In FY15, SEPP collaborated with the Office of College and Career Readiness (CCR) to create a
new online secondary transition forum, which features discussion and resources in the transition
domains of education/training, competitive employment, community participation, and
8
independent living. This tool is designed to encourage the flow of transition-related information
among all interested parties in Massachusetts, including students, families, school professionals,
employers, adult agencies, and higher education, in order to improve postsecondary outcomes for
students with disabilities. The new forum is sited on CCR’s Contextual Learning Portal, a
Department-sponsored website that provides opportunity and space for educators, community
organizations and other youth-serving agencies to share projects and lessons that involve
contextual teaching and learning.
In April 2015, teams of educators from 62 districts and collaboratives participated in training,
self-assessment, planning, and networking around promoting student self-determination, as part
of professional development activities through the federally-funded special education program
improvement Fund Code: 274 grant and as part of the roll-out of the Technical Assistance
Advisory 2016-2: Promoting Student Self-Determination to Improve Student Outcomes. SEPP
staff also collaborated with the Arc of Massachusetts and with the Institute for Community
Inclusion at UMass Boston to plan and present at their statewide conferences for hundreds of
family members and educators. Through the Vocational Special Education Leadership Institute
Fund Code 420 grant (also federally-funded), SEPP and the Office for Career/Vocational
Technical Education (CVTE) provided year-long training for vocational technical school
administrators to develop and strategically implement a coordinated system of special education
service delivery in academic and vocational instruction.
In an example of cross-agency collaboration, the Department worked over the spring and
summer of 2015 to draft new Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) with the Massachusetts
Rehabilitation Commission (MRC) and Massachusetts Commission for the Blind (MCB). These
MOUs describe enhanced agency partnerships in an era of the new Workforce Innovation and
Opportunity Act (WIOA), which took effect on July 1, 2015 (with a few exceptions) and requires
states to strategically align workforce development programs. Under WIOA, state vocational
rehabilitation (VR) agencies will set aside at least 15 percent of their VR funds to provide
transition services to youth with disabilities, including pre-employment transition services
delivered in collaboration with local LEAs and intended to help them obtain competitive
integrated employment.
B.
Educational Collaboratives
Educational collaboratives are formed through an agreement between or among two or more
school committees and/or charter school boards (member districts) to provide educational
programs or services that will supplement and complement programs and services offered by
their member districts. There are 26 collaboratives that have been approved by the Commissioner
of Elementary and Secondary Education under the provisions of G.L. c. 40, §4E. These
collaboratives collectively served 265 member districts during FY15.
Collaboratives are managed by a Board of Directors, comprised of the superintendent or a school
committee or charter board member from each member district, and are primarily funded through
local school committee and/or charter school budgets to serve public school students. During
FY15, 4,159 students with a full range of needs received direct services through educational
collaboratives. Collaboratives serve other students and adults by providing therapy services,
professional development, and vocational training for member and non-member districts.
Collaboratives have operated as public entities in Massachusetts for over forty years. While they
were initially formed in order to operate joint special education programs in which students from
member districts (and some non-member districts) could be served, they have evolved since that
9
time in order to meet additional needs of public school districts, such as cooperative purchasing,
transportation and in-service training. Collaboratives, however, continue to play an important
role in delivering special education services to students throughout the Commonwealth,
especially in the smallest districts, where capacity to provide extensive or low-incidence services
may be limited.
Following a major amendment in the authorizing legislation enacted in 2012, new regulations
governing collaboratives were approved by the Board of Elementary and Secondary Education
on January 29, 2013. As a component of increased accountability, each collaborative is required
to provide an annual report of its activities and an independent audit report to each of its member
school committees and the Department. The independent audit must also be provided to the State
Auditor. In addition, the collaborative board representatives must participate in training provided
or approved by the Department on the public records law, conflict of interest law, special
education law, the budgetary process, procurement, fraud prevention and awareness, and the
fiduciary and management oversight responsibilities of the collaborative Board of Directors. The
Department now also maintains students, staffing and MCAS data for each collaborative and
continues to include collaboratives in the Department’s Program Quality Assurance (PQA) sixyear cycle of coordinated program reviews.
Additional information on collaboratives, including the authorizing law and companion
regulations (603 CMR 50.00) may be accessed on the Department’s website at:
http://www.doe.mass.edu/finance/collaboratives/.
C.
Bureau of Special Education Appeals
The Bureau of Special Education Appeals ("BSEA"), an independent subdivision of the Division
of Administrative Law Appeals, conducts mediations and due process hearings to resolve
disputes among parents, school districts, private schools and state agencies.4 The BSEA derives
its authority from both federal law and regulations (the Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act, "IDEA") and Massachusetts law and regulations (G.L. c.71B). BSEA operations are
supported with federal special education funds.
A parent or a school district may file with the BSEA a request for mediation and/or a due process
hearing on any matter concerning the eligibility, evaluation, placement, IEP, provision of special
education, or procedural protections for students with disabilities, in accordance with state and
federal law.5 In addition, BSEA has jurisdiction over matters related to a parent’s request for a
hearing on any issue involving the denial of a free appropriate public education guaranteed by
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.
Mediations and hearings are conducted by impartial mediators and hearing officers who do not
have personal or professional interests that would conflict with their objectivity in the
proceeding. BSEA staff comprises seven (six full-time equivalent) hearing officers (all of whom
are attorneys), seven mediators, a coordinator of mediation, a scheduling coordinator,
administrative staff, and a director.
4
In addition to mediation and due process hearings (both of which must be offered pursuant to federal law), the
BSEA offers the following alternative dispute resolution options: IEP Team meeting facilitations; settlement
conferences; and advisory opinions.
5
A school district may not, however, request a hearing on a parent's failure or refusal to consent to initial evaluation
or initial placement of a child in a special education program, or to written revocation of parental consent for further
provision of special education and related services.
10
What follows is a summary of BSEA data for FY15.
1. Facilitated IEP TEAM Meetings
This year the BSEA facilitated 127 IEP Team meetings, a decrease from the 150 conducted
during the previous year. The BSEA was unable to offer its services in response to fifteen
additional requests for Team meeting facilitations because of staff unavailability.
2. Mediation
There were 733 mediations conducted in FY15. This represents a decrease of seven percent from
the 790 conducted during the prior year. The percent of mediations held that resulted in
mediation agreements remained consistent this year at 84.4 percent.
3. Due Process Hearings
The BSEA received 492 hearing requests during FY15, a decrease of nearly 17 percent from the
590 requests made in the prior year. BSEA hearing officers conducted full hearings resulting in
18 decisions, which is a decrease from the 25 decisions issued in the previous year. Additionally,
hearing officers issued 48 substantive written rulings, compared to 53 such rulings in the prior
year.
4. Prevailing Party and Representation
Of the 18 hearing decisions noted above, parents fully prevailed in three, school districts fully
prevailed in 11, and mixed relief was awarded in three. One decision involved an LEA
assignment case.
5. Settlement Conferences
The settlement conference is a voluntary alternative dispute resolution process available to
litigants only after a hearing request has been filed, affording the parties one last opportunity to
resolve the matter through the BSEA without proceeding to a due process hearing. Settlement
conferences were held in 63 of the cases that were filed for hearing in FY15.
IV.
For More Information
The information in this report is a compilation of data and narrative contributions from several
units within the Department, as well as input from the Massachusetts Organization of Education
Collaboratives, the state Office of Medicaid, and the Division of Administration Law Appeals. If
you have any questions, please contact the Office of Special Education Planning and Policy at
the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, Marcia Mittnacht, Director, by email at
mmmittnacht@doe.mass.edu or by phone at 781-338-3375.
11